We receive no funds from corporations, foundations, super-rich individuals, political parties or governments. We only pay our bills for this site and our email listserve with much appreciated donations from individuals who chip in whatever they can afford to keep us online. We are a 501(c)(3) non-profit U.S. tax-exempt corporation.

As the data cited in the linked articles below suggest, there is good scientific reason to be highly skeptical about the claims, by people like Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that humans are causing catastrophic global warming by producing CO2. In addition, there is a social/political reason to be highly skeptical of these claims. The rulers of the world, like the ruling class of the United States, are an extremely wealthy and privileged elite who need to control ordinary people to prevent them from rising up in any way against the elite of the world. Elites have discovered various ways of controlling people over the centuries. One way is by using war between nations to make people obey their own rulers in the name of unity against the "real enemy"--the foreign enemy nation. Another way, hundreds of years ago, was to persuade people that the cost of disobeying the ruling royalty and Church leaders was an eternity of horrible suffering in hell. Even people (such as Pascal famously), who were very skeptical of the "eternity in hell" threat, reasoned that if there were even the slightest chance that it were true then it's safer to assume it is true and obey the rulers than to disobey them and risk finding out the hard way that eternal hell is the consequence.

Today the rulers argue that we must put aside concerns about economic inequality and environmental pollution caused by profit-driven capitalists (such as BP and its destruction of much life in the Gulf of Mexico just to make a buck) because the "real enemy" is human-caused catastrophic global warming that can only be defeated if we all unite behind our leaders to reduce our CO2 "footprint"; furthermore, if we disobey our rulers then the consequence will be even WORSE than an eternity of personal suffering in hell--it will be the end of the human race entirely because of climate catastrophy. How convenient is the man-caused catastrophic global warming thesis!

Does this scathing criticism of science (that a lot of what is published is incorrect because of, in part, "flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends") by Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, one of the world's most respected medical journals, have anything to do with climate research today? You decide.

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum (2014, NASA) [Note: Arctic, as opposed to antarctic, ice is indeed decreasing. There has indeed been global warming in the 20th century and it is not unlikely that it is affecting sea ice currently. The question, however, is whether or not the CAUSE of global warming (which, by the way, has been on an 18 year hiatus) has been human-produced C02 as theorized by the scientists who have incorporated their theories into models to simulate future climate and on the basis of which they are predicting catastrophic warming unless we dramatically reduce our "carbon footprint." Since these models (i.e., the hypothecized theory they are based upon) failed to predict the 18 year (and counting) hiatus in global warming, the theory does not seem to be a good one to base any decisions on. When a randomized clinical trial shows no evidence that a drug is efficacious the drug is not approved for medical use no matter how wonderful the arguments were for the hypothesis that it would be efficacious; likewise since the 18 year "trial" of the CO2-causes-catastrophic-global-warming hypothesis failed to provide observations in support of that hypothesis, it should not be used to make big decisions, no matter how wonderful the arguments were for that hypothesis. If it turns out that global warming re-commences in the future, we will need to come up with a NEW hypothesis to explain it, one that is DIFFERENT from the now-discredited CO2-causes-catastrophic-global-warming hypothesis. There are plenty of other hypotheses to be considered and tested; that's called good science. But to keep trying to "explain away" dis-confirming observations (such as the 18 year hiatus in global warming) in order to prop up a failed hypothesis is bad science.]

The 18 year long plateau in global temperature is an embarassment to the advocates of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGM) hypothesis because the climate models used by these advocates ("warmers") predicted substantial warming during these 18 years. Instead of rejecting their CAGM hypothesis because its predictions are not observed (which would be the scientific thing to do) the "warmers" go to great lengths to argue that the observed global temperature can be explained without rejecting the CAGM hypothesis. This article (praised and summarized here) is an attempt to do just that, by using elaborate statistical agruments. But this article examines the statistical arguments and shows that they are completely invalid, so bad in fact that one statistician, Gordon Hughes, stated, "The statistical methods used in the paper are so bad as to merit use in a class on how not to do applied statistics. All this paper demonstrates is that climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics and Nature should get some competent referees." Here is another article dismissing the plateau in global warming by adjusting (changing) old data in such a manner as to make the plateau go away, as explained by this critique of the article.

In 1997, Richard S. Lindzen, "a leading expert on physical processes of the atmosphere" and a member of the National Academy of Sciences at age 37, as reported in the NYT here, said there was no evidence of a global warming problem. And guess what? The data from then till now (May, 2015) provide no evidence of a rise in global temperature (the famous "plateau" acknowledged even by the head of the IPCC.) Lindzen continues to challenge the thesis that humans are causing catastrophic global warming, writing in March, 2015, an article titled, "The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics," in which he says:

"Research in recent years has encouraged those of us who question the popular alarm over allegedly man-made global warming. Actually, the move from “global warming” to “climate change” indicated the silliness of this issue. The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. This normal course is now taken to be evidence of doom.

"Individuals and organizations highly vested in disaster scenarios have relentlessly attacked scientists and others who do not share their beliefs. The attacks have taken a threatening turn.

"As to the science itself, it’s worth noting that all predictions of warming since the onset of the last warming episode of 1978-98—which is the only period that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) attempts to attribute to carbon-dioxide emissions—have greatly exceeded what has been observed. These observations support a much reduced and essentially harmless climate response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide."

The Left vs. the Climate: Why Progressives Should Reject Naomi Klein's Pastoral Fantasy--and Embrace Our High Energy Planet, by Will Boisvert

Forget global warming!? Earth undergoing global COOLING since 2002! Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002’

Scientists evaluate the Anthropogenic Catastrophic Climate Change thesis in this document. Here is the source of the document.

Report by the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), whose lead author scientists are here. The Executive Summary details point by point why the IPCC conclusions (human-caused catastrophic global warming) are not credible.

The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.

The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert, a book by Donna Laframboise about the IPCC (the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) A review of this book by a person who has advised the editor of this website to take the warnings of the IPCC very seriously. This editor, contrary to the reviewer's opinion, thinks this book by Donna Laframboise makes a very persuasive case that the IPCC is not an organization to be trusted or taken seriously.

On the Fundamental Defect in the IPCC's Approach to Global Warming Research by Syun-Ichi Akasofu at this URL: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2007/06/15/on-the-fundamental-defect-in-the-ipcc%E2%80%99s-approach-to-global-warming-research-by-syun-ichi-akasofu/ [Note: due to some weirdness in this URL address, you need to copy and paste it into your browser manually. Sorry.]

The Faithful Heretic, by Dave Hoopman (an interview with Reid A. Bryson, Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome, which on page 75 states: "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, wh ich we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself." NOTE that the Council of the Club of Rome selected Al Gore to chair its 1997 annual meeting (in Washington D.C.)